Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

ParkRunner

[QUOTE=T runner;58822053

JUDICIAL REVIEWS
One hundred and ninety-six legal challenges to the
deportation/transfer process, through the medium
of Judicial Review by persons faced with deportation
were instituted in 2007.[/QUOTE]

It also says "The volume and cost of Judicial Reviews now being taken has major human and financial resource consequences for INIS and indeed the State."

I would take this to mean challenges taken by people who are facing deportation i.e. who have had a deportation order signed. It wouldn't include the other hundreds of cases challenging RAC and RAT decisions!

T runner

EF wrote: »

It also says "The volume and cost of Judicial Reviews now being taken has major human and financial resource consequences for INIS and indeed the State."

I would take this to mean challenges taken by people who are facing deportation i.e. who have had a deportation order signed. It wouldn't include the other hundreds of cases challenging RAC and RAT decisions!

I think it would actually. People challenging RAC go to the RAT. All RAT decisions can only be challenged by Judicial Review.

If there was transparency in how the members of the RAT are appointed, transparency and statistics about verdicts and reviews per RAT member and transparency about how a member is removed you could simply see which members decisions are consistently ending up in the judiciary and have that member removed!
That might improve consistency in the RAT and save money for the taxpayer.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think BlackieBest may know her personally so his coming from this angle is perfectly understandable and reasonable as he explained.

Ofcourse some of the groundless comments about 100,000 Nigerian migrants if we let her stay, the Irish system being attacked, shes an economic migrant etc. Ofcourse these dont bear mentioning when it doesnt suit?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rkeane

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And Pamela Izevbekhai absolutely doesn't merit it.

Sizzler

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Frankly unbelievable case, I had to read it twice.

T runner - I'm guessing despite numerous 'corrections' in some of the stuff you have posted here you still continue with the engrained belief that everybody else is wrong on this case except you and the defendant. As a previous poster has said, will you ever accept the ruling? You are entitled to think the individual is entitled to stay, thats a personal emotive opinion but the fact that the appeals process has been milked to the extreme and still the answer is NO and your lack of acceptance is diluting the value of each and every reposte you are typing on here.

I feel sorry for donegalfella, the man must be mithered at this stage.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely.

With regard to asylum, it should not matter if somebody is wonderful, charming and friendly or if they're the most odious, obnoxious human being you are ever likely to have the displeasure of encountering. If the wonderful one doesn't merit asylum, he or she goes. If the jerk does, he or she stays.

I also wouldn't regard it as an issue of who is going to contribute to the economy either - people whose intention it is to contribute to the economy should seek work permits, if they are in Ireland because they are fleeing persecution, then it shouldn't matter if they are qualified, experienced professionals or if they have never worked a day in their lives. What matters is whether or not they qualify for asylum.

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

Im sure you do. But then you dont seem to decide things on the facts in front of you rather you let your idealogical leanings decide things for you. (Well thats what you seem to believe of others atleast).
have a look at the previous post on the RAT.

So what are you saying here. The previous poster is not entitiled to their beliefs because it does not fit with yours? Bit narrow minded if you ask me.

blackiebest wrote: »

Yes they will. I know I am not T-Runner but i say they would be wrong to make a decision which results in Pamela and her children being deported from this country.

I enjoy reading the posts here, for the most part, as i have learned so much about not only our legal processes but also what we are like as a society. It will be wrong if our civil servants remove Pamela's kids from their friends and school and send them to Nigeria. Legally it may stack up and I do respect that however deporting this family will be as wrong as many of the racist or smug views which pop up here occasionaly. And when Pamela and her kids are still here in one, ten and twenty years time making a valuable contribution to our society I hope the learned but morally bankrupt views expressed here will be history. She is trying to protect her kids and she is doing what we all would do in similiar circumstances.

There may well be holes in her story and I do not know if all is as she has recounted but we would be a better society to grant her and her kids leave to remain here. She is a wonderful woman.

Not agreeing with someones elses opinion is not racist. Who has been racisit on this thread, and if anyone has, why have the mods not banned them?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

T runner wrote: »

I havent questioned the integrity of any court. A large group of knowledgeable Lawyers and Barrister have raised issues about the rAT.

The question has been asked of you Trunner, and not of a large group of knowledgeable Lawyers and Barristers . Again, can you answer the quesiton based on your beliefs please?

donegalfella wrote: »

Regardless of any personal relationship that blackiebest may have with Mrs Izevbekhai and her children, it's not "understandable and reasonable" to argue that someone deserves asylum in our country because she's "wonderful." Asylum is not a popularity contest, and it should only be awarded to those who need and merit it.

I made this point before on the Sligo thread. Before you know it, we will be in a situation somewhat akin to the X-factor. Lets have a vote on who should stay because they were the nicest!

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is the relevant Law:

Section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 provides that, inter alia,

(i) a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal under Section 16 (as amended by Section 11(1)(K) of the Immigration Act, 1999 of the Refugee Act, 1996.
(k) a determination of the Commissioner or a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal under Section 22 (as amended by Section 11(1)(p) of the Immigration Act, 1999) of the Refugee Act, 1996

…can only be challenged by way of judicial review.

Somebody ends up in the High Court because she fears that she will die if she breaks an oath taken at an occult shrine? I mean, come on. Of course, I'm sure that T runner will now argue that the RAT and the High Court made the wrong decision, and that all of these fine upstanding individuals should have received the full protection of the Irish state. . .

The question that needs to be asked is why this case ended up in the High Court?

The Supreme Court has held that:

“As regards the requirement that an Applicant for leave to issue judicial review proceedings establish ‘substantial grounds’ that an administrative decision is invalid or ought to be quashed, this is not an unduly onerous requirement since the High Court must decline leave only where it is satisfied that the application could not succeed or where the grounds relied on are not reasonable or are ‘trivial or tenuous”.

The Courts discussed the irrationality and unreasonableness test in Irish law and quoted with approval the judgments in several leading cases including that of Mr. Justice Henchy in The State (Keegan) -v- The Stardust Victims’ Compensation Tribunal who set out what could be considered as an unreasonable decision:

(1) It is fundamentally at variance with reason and common sense.
(2) It is indefensible for being in the teeth of plain reason and common sense.
(3)Because the Court is satisfied that the decision maker has breeched his obligation whereby he must not flagrantly reject or disregard fundamental reason or common sense in reaching a decision.

With regard to decisions of specialist bodies, the High Court quoted the judgment in Denny, which states that, the Courts:

“…should be slow to interfere with the decisions of expert administrative tribunals…It should be recognized that tribunals which have been given statutory tasks to perform and exercise functions as is now usually the case, with a high degree of expertise and provide coherence and balanced judgments on the evidence and arguments heard by them, it should not be necessary for the Courts to review their decisions by way of appeal or judicial review.”

Do you understand the significance of this? If Mickey mouse cases (like the one quoted) are ending up in the High Court you must point the finger at the RAT. And this is the crux: It is the lack of expertise causing mistakes in the RAT that forces the High Court to hear some of these cases.

The fact that the case is based on hocus pocus or the applicant is afraid of a shape shifting goat has nothing to do with it going to the High Court. It goes to the high court because the applicant had a reasonable case for the RAT member acting unlawfully. If the RAT member did his/her job correctly that would have been cased closed.

Again you need to find out who the tribunal member for that case was and ask a few serious questions and if a large number of cases emanate from that member make it to the high court then REMOVE that Tribunal member, and replace them with an expert in refugee Law.
But thats not possible as there is no transparency in how members are appointed by the Minister and there are no procedures for removing them.

Just so as not to dissapoint some of my supporters who were hoping I would support the applicants in this case: I believe the Judge was wrong in two statements.

there was nothing preventing them from seeking protection from the Nigerian authorities on their return.....................the Judge said that any fears she had about her daughter suffering from FGM could be countered by moving to a part of Nigeria, a territory of some 1 million square kms, that forbids such practices.

There is NO protection available to anyone (bar High up Officials and American Oil companies) from the Nigerian authorities.

The judges assertion that "a part of Nigeria that forbids such practices" would protect someone from FGM is ludicrous. There has been NO convictions for FGM anywhere in Nigeria ever! There ARE NO state protections.

This was irrelevant to the outcome of this case but it may be the difference between life and death to some.

I have demonstrated the lack of protections via ample evidence from Country of Origin reports (admissable in RAT and Court) many times on this thread. These reports are online. If anyone can demonstrate that this is not so, you will convince me. If you cant then we have a situation where our courts clearly believe there is adequate state protections in Nigeria against FGM and we must surely ask ourselves what is wrong with our asylum system that the courts are saying something which is clearly not in reality a fact?

T runner

HollyB wrote: »

Absolutely.

With regard to asylum, it should not matter if somebody is wonderful, charming and friendly or if they're the most odious, obnoxious human being you are ever likely to have the displeasure of encountering. If the wonderful one doesn't merit asylum, he or she goes. If the jerk does, he or she stays.

I also wouldn't regard it as an issue of who is going to contribute to the economy either - people whose intention it is to contribute to the economy should seek work permits, if they are in Ireland because they are fleeing persecution, then it shouldn't matter if they are qualified, experienced professionals or if they have never worked a day in their lives. What matters is whether or not they qualify for asylum.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The thread asked if you think she should be deported. If it was any of your sisters or a close friend presumably you would probably answer no. He also said he wasn't au fait with the legal side of things but he clearly believes she shouldnt be deported. Is this not understandable? He answered the OPs question. Thats fair enough.

It is also of benefit to us that we have someone who knows her and so obviously testifies to her good name and truth.

ParkRunner

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,NGA,,4980858a0,0.html

An interesting recent article regarding the practice of FGM in west africa. I think it is fair to say that there are possibilities for people facing a threat of FGM to escape the threat, in particular if their mother is a well educated, wealthy, influential figure..

Just a few quotes:

"Whether a young woman has been subjected to FGM or not affects her social status, but also that of her relatives." Maybe discrimination but not persecution

"The belief that women who are not subjected to FGM will grow abnormally large reproductive organs is widespread, and so are preconceptions that female reproductive organs that are not cut or removed will be in the way during childbirth and/or that contact with them may be harmful to the child. Another common notion is that women who are not subjected to FGM are less fertile than “cut” women. Even more common is the perception that women who are not subjected to FGM will be unable to control their sexual urges.
However, such misconceptions are now regressing in many areas, as people living in communities where FGM is not universally practiced are unable to observe clear differences in behaviour between women who have been subjected to some form of FGM and those who have not. This also leads to a more widespread knowledge that women not subjected to FGM do not grow abnormally large reproductive organs, or, for that matter, that they are not more subject to birth complications than other women (quite the opposite, in fact)."

"In many communities it is common that people and social groups who identify with progress and modernity stress FGM as one of traditional practices with an exceptionally negative symbolic value. These people and groups have considerable influence in African societies, but there are also large groups who are deeply sceptical with regards to projects and developments associated with modernity."

"In addition to information efforts, many groups – both state authorities, local NGOs and international aid organisations – work as activists in order to influence communities on a local level to put a stop to the practice of FGM."

"Many studies clearly show that FGM is less widespread among women with some education than among others, and this is particularly evident for women with higher education. This shows that parents and guardians who make their girls’ education a priority, also subject them to FGM to a lesser extend than others. Researchers have also found a clear tendency in a number of studies that there is a clear correlation between the educational level of parents and guardians, especially of mothers, and lower incidences of FGM." Pamela could be described as a well educated woman!

"Here it is crucial to emphasise that religion may also be associated with progress and modernity. This is especially common in societies like the West African ones, where religious conversion or a marked change in religious practice within a religion often implies a symbolic break with tradition.
Both Christian and Muslim communities in the region run missionary activities targeting groups and individuals who practice African religions, and partly targeting each other (i.e. Christian mission targeting Muslims and vice versa). Home missionary efforts are even more important both within Christian and Muslim communities, targeting people who practice more syncretistic versions of Christianity and Islam (i.e. people who mix Christianity or Islam with local African rites and religious views)."

"The parents of a girl or young woman are important, maybe especially her mother, but there are others who traditionally have a say in the decision. Grandparents, aunts and uncles (especially older siblings of both parents) have a lot of influence, but more distant relatives may also be involved in the decision." Ok the in-laws may be involved in the decision but this is about the extent of their influence!

"In situations where parents/guardians wish not to have their daughters subjected to FGM, but where other relatives may try to intervene and overrule their decision, the circumstances are more complex. As mentioned above in part 3.4, it is not given who will have the last word – parents/guardians or other relatives, and the result is far from certain." Ok it's far from certain but there is a good possibility the children will escape FGM as their parents do not want the procedure performed.

"In addition to discussions among the concerned, both parties will also be able to involve others to try to tip the scales in their favour. This part of the report will focus on what other persons and institutions that those opposing FGM can turn to for moral and practical support". Again they discuss and argue their case, I don't see children being forced to undergo the procedure anywhere here.

"In cases where no party is able to convince the other, the elders in the family will often make the final decision – either a compromise solution21 or a solution favouring one of the parties." Again civil enough

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

These questions aren't pressing or outstanding. (only to you). For example if the RAT cross examined an applicant over this there would immediately be substantial grounds for an applicant to appeal to the high court.

As for Mrs Izevbekhai's "good name," it has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. The court is not trying to determine whether she is a person of sound moral character.

You seem to think it has. You have accused her of being untruthful to such a degree that you claimed she was an economic migrant.

They're trying to determine whether she and her daughters have a reasonable and well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. She could be an absolute saint and not merit asylum. She could be an absolute shyster and be found deserving of it.

The post was do YOU think she should be deported. Ive no problem with Blackbests answer. He told the truth and didnt try to bull**** which some of the posters who slammed him should note. His post was reasonable and understandable in the context of someone who knows her.

If you read the newspaper story I posted above, you'll see that in addition to nonsense about occult shrines, killer curses, and assorted other hocus pocus, any asylum seeker with a daughter also routinely claims to be fleeing from female genital mutilation. This is becoming a standard claim in these asylum cases. And the justice in that case rightly pointed out that the applicant could reasonably locate to a part of Nigeria where FGM is hardly practiced at all, and where it is outlawed.

The justice didnt rightly point out anything of the kind. The Justice stated that the applicants could avail of State protection (they cant) and that the woman in question could go to a part of Nigeria where FGM was forbidden.
Sorry to repeat myself but there has NEVER been anyone convicted of FGM in NIgeria. Never. Sending someone to a state which outlaws FGM will not make them safer because THE LAW IS NOT ENFORCED.

So, please, if you cant show state protections then tell me why is this Justice
saying something which appears not to be true?

opo

T runner wrote: »

opo wrote: »

Thats Tom Brady for ya! From department of Justice

JUDICIAL REVIEWS
One hundred and ninety-six legal challenges to the
deportation/transfer process, through the medium
of Judicial Review by persons faced with deportation
were instituted in 2007.

Further to my point and the 196 challennges you refer to. Hows about a few examples?

I would guess as substantial and weighty as:

Deportation order sent to wrong address.
Deportees name spelled wrong.
Ink faded on deportation order.
Ordered not issued in Irish etc etc etc.

I mean, how do you suppose a pro forma letter following a traceable process can attract so many reviews?

Particularily when the actual deportation is imminent as opposed to receipt of the letter?

opo

It could never happen here.........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3501476/Law-firms-help-asylum-seekers-submit-fake-claims.html

blackiebest

As I said earlier, I do know Pamela, I am not an expert on the law etc, but "Should she be deported?" I say no. Many of you who dont know her say otherwise. But consider this and then slate me; Its a bit off topic but as true a story as could ever be told;

Two mates of mine, the other night, fell out the door of a rural pub, 10 pints on board, slaughtered drunk. The house they were heading for was 2 1/2 miles away and very stupidly they decided to drive as no sign of the summoned taxi. Into the car and got less than a hundred yards before blue light went on behind them. Local Sargent, on his own, up to window. Ten minutes later he drove the boys, in his own car, to the house they were heading for, kept the keys of drunks car and told them to collect them the next morning. How can that happen in Jan 2009? We know what should have happened in LAW. The next morning the cop dropped the keys down to the house and reinforced his "never ever ever again" to the driver. Was he a good cop. Should the driver have lost his licence or was the chance given warranted? I know the driver, he is one of my best friends, he never had met the cop before and normally would never do anything so stupid, the cop had watched the two eejits come out of the pub, get cold waiting for the taxi, hop into the car and promptly pulled them over. i say good policing but others will say dirty cop or the driver deserved to be nailed.

The law applied is not always right. If our laws determine Pamela should leave then the laws are wrong in this case. They may be correct in 99% but discretion should be applied when warranted. The cynical view of 'media manipulation' and here for the money is what degrades this debate. The legal arguements are interesting and the send her home brigade really have built up a frenzy of impatience for her to leave. Remember her kids or maybe think of your own as you write with such conviction that they should be removed from Sligo and sent to the one place that our courts have decided their genetalia probably wont be cut off

opo

T runner wrote: »

This is the relevant Law:





The question that needs to be asked is why this case ended up in the High Court?



Do you understand the significance of this? If Mickey mouse cases (like the one quoted) are ending up in the High Court you must point the finger at the RAT. And this is the crux: It is the lack of expertise causing mistakes in the RAT that forces the High Court to hear some of these cases.

The fact that the case is based on hocus pocus or the applicant is afraid of a shape shifting goat has nothing to do with it going to the High Court. It goes to the high court because the applicant had a reasonable case for the RAT member acting unlawfully. If the RAT member did his/her job correctly that would have been cased closed.

There is a far more pragmatic solution that you may like. A proper pre-screening procedure that would have deemed this case inadmissable to the asylum system in the first place and the individual concerned deported immediately.

Such a system might also decide that there should not be hundreds of cases claiming fear of FGM from Nigeria and might accept (unlike yourself) that the Nigerian state cannot provide 24 hour bodyguards to all individuals claiming a vague and unprovable risk of forced FGM no more that this state can.

T runner

opo wrote: »

T runner wrote: »

Further to my point and the 196 challennges you refer to. Hows about a few examples?

I would guess as substantial and weighty as:

Deportation order sent to wrong address.
Deportees name spelled wrong.
Ink faded on deportation order.
Ordered not issued in Irish etc etc etc.

I mean, how do you suppose a pro forma letter following a traceable process can attract so many reviews?

Particularily when the actual deportation is imminent as opposed to receipt of the letter?

Look, first you quote 1 thousand reviews from that dodgy Tom Brady article. Now were down to 196.
(The fact that he called ALL failed asylum seekers bogus should have alerted you)

Do you have actual examples or just guesses?

Heres an actual example:

The member argued with the appellant for most of the RAT hearing about a Law in Delta State banning FGM that the appellant hadnt used where no Law actually existed against FGM in Delta State. (The High Court didnt quash the verdict tellingly)

Heres some possibilities:

The RAT member was selective in his evidence for State Protection.
The member was confrontational and obstructive which affected the appellants presentation.
etc.

A poster called EF who like you wants her gone claims that the RAT has tightened up. Argue it with him.

Maybe think twice before quoting a Tom Brady next time, weve had a few of his excellent articles quoted over the course of this thread.

T runner

opo wrote: »

There is a far more pragmatic solution that you may like. A proper pre-screening procedure that would have deemed this case inadmissable to the asylum system in the first place and the individual concerned deported immediately.

Simpler to sort out the RAT and look at the possibilities after that.

Such a system might also decide that there should not be hundreds of cases claiming fear of FGM from Nigeria and might accept (unlike yourself) that the Nigerian state cannot provide 24 hour bodyguards to all individuals claiming a vague and unprovable risk of forced FGM no more that this state can.

I know you are new to the thread but does it not occur to you that this point has already been raised? You may need to read up a little.

I accept that the Nigerian state cant provide 24hr protection. I also accept the Nigerian state cant even provide one hour protection against forced FGM. If you need proof theres buckets of Country of Origin Proof (all admissable in Court) in previous posts about the States uptake of their own FGM Laws and of the inadequacies (understatement) of the Nigerian Police. Proof that there are NO state protections in Nigeria against FGM. But please feel free to prove that there are. Nobody has been able to show that Nigeria could protect someone to any degree in these circumstances (forcible kidnap).

And that leaves us with the puzzle of the Irish Asylum Process insisting State Protections are adequate in Nigeria. We have a justice suggesting an appellant should go to a state where it is forbidden when there have been NO PROSECUTIONS against FGM in that state.

Ireland does have an agreement with Nigeria about repatriating failed asylum seekers where the person is handed over to a policeman.
Maybe they think that proves state protection?

ParkRunner

T runner wrote: »

opo wrote: »

A poster called EF who like you wants her gone claims that the RAT has tightened up.

Anyway, maybe think twice before quoting a Tom Brady next time, weve had a few of his even articles quoted over the course of this thread.

Have you any observations on the independent landinfo country of origin information i quoted above t-runner? It seems to indicate that some sections of Nigeria will not tolerate FGM?? Especially where the child's mother is well educated and affluent!

opo

T runner wrote: »

opo wrote: »

Look, first you quotes 1 thousand reviews from that dodgy Tom Brady article.
(The fact that he called ALL failed asylum seekers bogus should have alerted you)

Do you have actual examples or just guesses?

Heres an actual example:

The member argued with the appellant for most of the RAT hearing about a Law in Delta State banning FGM that the appellant hadnt used where no Law actually existed in Delta State.

Heres some possibilities:

The RAT member was selective in his evidence for State Protection.
The member was confrontational and obstructive which affected the appellants presentation.
etc.

A poster called EF who like you wants her gone claims that the RAT has tightened up.

Anyway, maybe think twice before quoting a Tom Brady next time, weve had a few of his even articles quoted over the course of this thread.

I couldnt give a rats what Brady said about bogus asylum seekers. I was specifically referring to the fact of 1000 cases for judicial review and I have made a number of points regarding the massive increase in court cases associated with claims for asylum.

You on the other hand seem to regard this as vindication of your theory that the RAT is flawed when it does no such thing for one simple reason; the overwhelming majority of these cases fail.

Judicial review lists in this country are now dominated by asylum and immigration cases - of which only the smallest percentage manage to establish an arguable case.

My point remains that the courts - at judicial review stage - have now become a third layer in an already exhaustive and badly abused process.

Ms Izevbekhai's case - now in it's seventh layer of appeal and fourth year - simply underscores the neccessity to curb abuse of the legal system and terminate processing of dubious claims at some reasonable stage - preferably before they even enter what is clearly a broken system.

As previously stated by myself - the introduction of the immigration bill that will pass costs onto the legal profession for vexatious and frivolous claims is long overdue and I would bet my home - reduce lists to a fraction of what they are now.

Now - can you point to a single case where an individual was returned to Nigeria and FGM performed, or not, because really, that would be of more interest to me than your circular arguments and nitpicking.

ParkRunner

To further the point about the numbers of cases before the High Court in the Asylum judicial review list:

http://www.courts.ie/legaldiary.nsf/a29e83d32296b62f80256c590060acda/cac540d8a6b27e548025754e002ea9d5?OpenDocument

Also the number of judicial reviews which the Dept of Justice quoted was just those who have a deportation made against them, i.e. not including RAC or RAT!

From the ORAC Annual Report 2007:

"A continuing challenge for my Office has been the
number of judicial reviews being received. 440 judicial
reviews were received in 2007, a significant increase
on 2006."

From a parliamentary question the number of JR's taken against RAT in 2007 was 350, which brings the total number to almost 1,000 in 2007!

http://www.jcfj.ie/pqs/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=45&sobi2Id=1664&Itemid=27

Also from the same PQ the number of applicants successful before a court in this eight year period was 43. Not exactly a huge amount. 43 decisions were quashed by the High Court out of almost 2000 challenges taken in 8 years.

The new bill also says that members of the new protection review tribunal will have to have at least 5 years relevant experience to be appointed to the tribunal! You would hardy call that an inexperienced tribunal?

On the issue of costs while I hope the court does direct that the legal reps pay the costs where they bring frivilous and vexatious cases but I would be sceptical that they would do so. In some cases even despite losing cases the Court directs that the State pays costs because the nature of the case was in the public interest/of public importance eg. Agbonlahor.

A provision for fixing the legal reps with costs where they bring wasted cases already exists under Order 99 Rule 7 of the Superior Courts, and it is rarely inforced. In Kennedy v. Kileen the High Court concluded that the facts of the case fell far short of the exceptional circumstances which might justify a wasted costs type order. The Court held that such orders should be confined to cases where clearly a legal representative acting in litigation had been in serious default. The Law Reform Commission in its Report on Judicial Review
Procedure recommended that the leave stage be retained because of the High Court's reluctance to use its inherent jurisdiction to strike out frivolous or vexatious proceedings.

ParkRunner

Another reason why she should be granted leave to remain..She looks like Michelle Obama!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0131/1232923379349.html

Madam, – A picture on page 4 of last Wednesday’s Irish Times showed a strong tall African woman with her two beautiful daughters.

As I glanced at the paper initially I thought it was a picture of Michelle Obama and her two daughters, perhaps starting their new school in Washington. Then, looking closely, I realised it was a photograph of Pamela Izevbekhai with her two daughters at the High Court in Dublin, where she had just heard the legal challenge to her deportation had been dismissed. Now, unless the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights help her, she and her children will be deported to Nigeria where the girls face the threat of female genital mutilation.

We have seen so many pictures of Michelle Obama and her children in recent days embracing the new challenges now facing them, that my mistake was perhaps inevitable. However Pamela, who “looked weary when she left the Four Courts”, now faces an infinitely more difficult struggle and the difference in the futures of these intelligent women, both with two daughters of similar ages, struck me deeply.

Can the Irish Government and the Irish people help Pamela Izevbekhai and others in her position?

As Barack Obama said, “Yes, we can. . .It’s about time. It’s about change”. – Yours, etc,

MAGGIE MORAN,

North Great George’s Street,

Dublin 1.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

blackiebest wrote: »

Was he a good cop. Should the driver have lost his licence or was the chance given warranted?

That depends on the driver's future actions.

If he drives drunk a second time and knocks somebody over, injuring or even killing them, I think that they and their family would be justified in feeling angry towards the Garda for not pulling the driver up for drunk-driving the first time - if he lost his licence, he wouldn't have been driving when he knocked them over, after all. If he doesn't repeat the offence, then the Garda was right to trust his judgment that a sterner measure wasn't necessary.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's something I don't really get; if subsidiary protection is awarded solely at the Minister's discretion, how can people take cases against him for not awarding it to them?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.